Islam
Spread by Sword or by Persuasion?
By Dr. Maqsood Jafri
New York
The other day a Jew named Martin
Moshay called me and asked: “Was Islam spread
by sword or by persuasion?” I responded:
“Islam was spread by peaceful preaching
but the Muslim imperialists expanded their territories
through sword.” Hence we must be clear that
Islam was introduced and preached by Prophet Mohammad
(PBUH) himself through character and message.
The prophet of Islam peacefully preached Islam
in Mecca for thirteen years. There was no battle
or sword involved. He was teased and tortured.
His companions were executed and persecuted. His
adversaries plotted to kill him. He had to migrate
to Medina.
In Medina the Prophet (PBUH) made a peace truce
with the local Jews and Christians for peaceful
co-existence. He did not attack the Meccans. Rather,
the Meccans under the leadership of Abu Suffyan
thrice raided Medina and killed his relatives
and companions. His dear uncle Hazrat Amir Hamza
was killed in the Battle of Ohad. The people of
Medina accepted Islam not by sword but by preaching.
During the lifetime of the holy prophet of Islam
he was involved in defensive battles. The anti-Islamic
forces desired his extinction with the extinction
of Islam. An orientalist has aptly remarked that
the error of Mohammad is that he did not offer
himself to his foes to be killed. He bravely faced
them and defeated them. What this man meant was
that Mohammad was not a lamb but a lion. The purpose
of Islamic mission by raising a special “ummah”
was just to maintain peace and justice. Islam
did not come to shed blood of the people of other
faiths. In Sura “The Heifer” the Quran
announces: “We have made you a just community
(an ummah justly balanced ) that you (with your
lives) might bear witness to the truth before
all mankind and your own Apostle may testify over
you.” (2:143).
The basic aim of the Muslim community is to spread
truth and end falsehood. The Qur’an at another
place says: “Truth has come and falsehood
has runaway.” Islam is an absolute and final
truth. It believes in the motto: Right is Might.
It does not believe in the mantra: Might is Right.
The earlier Islam battles were defensive. When
the foes of Islam saw that a religion claiming
freedom and equality is rapidly spreading they
attacked both; Islam and the Muslims. Actually
these were religious monopolists in the form of
priests who opposed Islam.
As Islam does not believe in obdurate theocracy
and priesthood, the so called custodians of other
faiths issued the decree of killing the Muslims
calling them heretics and pagans. On the other
hand the imperialists opposed Islam. The emperors
of Rome, Byzantine and Iran opposed Islam. Islam
gave the message of political, economic and social
equity and equality.
The Islamic concept of caliphate is contrary to
monarchy and priesthood. Hence all the priestly
and imperialist forces turned against Islam and
attacked Muslim territories. As an honest student
and analyst of history I admit the bitter fact
that some of the Ummayyed and Abbasid Muslim monarchs
in the lust of expansion attacked some non-Muslim
countries. They were usurpers and callous emperors.
They were not caliphs. The Western critics take
advantage of their period and blame Islam and
the whole history and Muslims. Here we must admit
that when these emperors attacked some non-Muslim
territories these were their military expeditions
which in some cases were necessa ry, otherwise
they would have been exterminated and extirpated.
Overall every honest and neutral student of Muslim
history would agree with me that Islam was not
spread by sword but by peaceful persuasion. The
tragedy with Islam is that its arch enemies became
the rulers of Muslims and the custodian of Islam.
They brought bad name to Islam. The religion that
had come to exterminate monarchy and priesthood
became the victim of both - monarchy and priesthood.
Nowhere any Muslim ruler forced his subjects to
embrace Islam. Malaysia and Indonesia are examples
where the Muslim traders went for business and
the locals accepted Islam without any coercion
or force. In India, the Hindus converted to Islam
under the influence of Muslim mystics. The Muslim
armies never set foot on these lands. Islam is
like a fountain having inner force to flow to
heights.
Christianity also spread through the message of
peace and love by the selfless and devoted missionaries.
We cannot ignore the services of Christian monks
and nuns in the spread of Christianity. However,
wherever the Christian colonialists went they
preached Christianity by coercion and by offering
money. Dr. Iqbal Hussain in his book entitled
“Terrorism in Action” (page 53) writes:
“When the Roman Emperor Constantine embraced
Christianity, he did so not only for himself but
for the whole nation. He made all embrace it.
Christianity became the religion of Roman Empire,
and imbued with enthusiasm and force. It started
spreading all over the neighboring areas.”
This may be true as far as the Roman Empire is
concerned. But does it mean we should say: Christianity
spread by sword, fear and money? In my opinion
this statement or conclusion is absolutely wrong.
When Jesus preached the mission of God and so
many people followed him, he had no sword in his
hand and no money in his coffer. Christianity
did not spread by sword in America, England, Italy,
Germany and France. Likewise, it is a baseless
charge that Islam spread by the sword. Throughout
his life Mohammad never brandished or wielded
a sword. He never killed anyone. He forgave his
arch enemies when he was a victor and could have
killed them.
(The writer is an eminent speaker and scholar
on comparative religion, literature and philosophy.
He can be reached at maqsoodjafri@aol.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
